bostonterrierowner wrote:I think its a clue worth exploring , to me the physical resemblance between thes 2 figures is just striking.

Aughh! I truly hope we're not making Bill roll in his grave. At this time, I personally think there's precious little evidence for Alex Jones being Bill Hicks. However, I won't say more for now - this is just my two cents... and I'm not one to discourage research!

bostonterrierowner wrote:I can see that a theory of Alex Jones being Bill Hicks gained some additional credibility

I think its a clue worth exploring , to me the physical resemblance between thes 2 figures is just striking.

Actually my returning to this topic was not due to any additional credibility, but rather to underline the paradox: that people are discussing the Bill Hicks possibility, missing or skipping the obvious under their eyes: that Alex Jones is a fake persona, who even uses sim-photos to fabricate himself a fake past, sort of like it was done with the "replicants" in Blade Runner.

This seems so much more important to me than any speculation on the Hicks connection, and actually it might explain why such connection is even there, so that we don't react to the news that "Alex Jones" is not a real person. "Of course, he's Bill Hicks!" Says the crowd. But that's not the point!

From Blade Runner. The replicant's fake family pictures, in support of the "memory implants".

From AJ's childhood pictures. Even Jones' father, the "dentist", looks a bit like Bill Hicks. Also, funny how, judging by the shadow around the "polaroid", the light source in this "scan" seem to be coming from the top left like any photoshop shadow plugin would pretend it to be coming from. Shadows in scans don't look like this.

Of course we can investigate if the Kevin Booth+Waco clues are meaningful. But I suspect we won't get far that way, not until a lot more is investigated about this Jones character who at this point is probably one of the most important cogs in 9/11 covering-up machine.

As to the damn resemblance: resemblances have been used for years to take the research on fakery for a ride. Ultimately they are not helpful because they try to define something that is vague and subjective and that could never be used in a court of law even if such court existed. It's the perfect time waster because everyone has an opinion and there is no safe universally recognized method to go past it. See what happened with the Arizona shooting. See the whole David Angell debate. Sure one can investigate and mention resemblances as a side clue to make people think at the possibility: but how can it be the main subject for a given investigation?

Resemblance is a tricky thing. Even people who have known someone for years can be confused by resemblances. Here's an italian wikedpedia article that it can be worth google-translating: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_Bruneri-Canella.It summarize the most famous case of mistaken identity that was big in Mussolini's time. Obviously a distraction to keep the people entertained (where the bad guy was even an "anarchist"). They went on for years in a court of law trying to prove the identity of a person who had replaced a soldier missing during WWI, even fooling or rather with the complicity of the soldier's wife... It's an episode that contains reflections on the resemblance problem that even inspired Pirandello to write one of his most crucial plays, Come tu mi vuoi ("As you desire me"). The moral being that resemblance is not safe ground.

I also think it rather obvious that Jones would be interested to have the Hicks debate going, to move the attention away from his hollow, fabricated past (a debate that already generates 1,370,000 results in google.) Besides I think the difference in age between the two characters is very visible in the early Jones appearances on video. At most it could be speculated that he is Hicks younger brother or an agent bred to be his replacement, for an operation later discarded. But you see how this is so completely speculative.

But one thing I found very... odd... is when he interviewed Doug Stanhope in April 2010. In the clip linked below, Stanhope makes the almost unnoticeable quip "...Kevin Booth, you might know as 'Yoko Hicks'" . By this he means that the partnership with Kevin Booth changed Hicks/Jones the way marrying Yoko Ono changed John Lennon. Very strange remark and I would have loved to have been able to see "Alex's" facial reaction. Go to time 6:14 for the Yoko Hicks line.